Yahoo

Jabber

Skype

Location

Interests

Hi ALL, Government customer is pushing back on our Prime invoice submission which included (a reduced) G&A on top of a Subcontractor ODC where they (sub) applied G&A to ODCs (Travel). Basically our sub incurred travel expense that are allowable and billable to the program and sub applied G&A to ODCs when submitting their invoice to Prime for processing. Prime applied G&A when processing the subs ODCs (at a reduced rate) onto final invoice (in customers mind we are "doubling up" G&A - I should also note this is the first time this long standing contract (FFP) has had a sub on it so this is new to this group of GS that handle this program). We've been in contracting for 20+ years and been through a ton of audits both with DCAA and other firms and the only push back we've ever received on this was "why we were applying a discounted G&A instead of our actual G&A to these?" never that it was unallowable, speaking to colleagues in the industry this seems pretty standard practice.
My question is, does anyone know of FAR clause relating to this or have a better way of explaining to customer? I tried to explain that both companies are applying G&A to it because we are both incurring expense to process these ODCs (was worded better than that) but he still has doubts.
I appreciate any and all feedback!

Can anyone provide information regarding risks related to a Government employee signing a timecard (as if the Government employee were a supervisor)? I'm finding instances where Contracting Officer's Representatives (CORs) have been signing timecards for doctors or related contractor-provided personnel (whether they are an employee of the contractor, or acting as a subcontractor). The then-signed timecards are then sent to the company by the contractor employee. I'm concerned about risk, but I'm not finding any significant supporting information about the does-and-don'ts about this practice.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Mike

We are bidding on a contract that requires a proprietary software to be updated during the contract period. We received a quote from the company that owns the software and will come in annually to update it. A question came if this company should be treated as a Subcontractor (which of course affects our subcontracting goals) or if they are considered a vendor and should be treated like an ODC.
I have searched the RFP to see if they define either of these terms with no luck. I have found the term subcontractor defined in FAR 44.101 but cannot find a clear definition of vendor.
Can someone point me in the right direction?

I am currently a CPFF subcontractor under a Government prime contract. My company cycles on a calendar year and each January we update our provisional indirect rates for the upcoming year as well as calculate our final rates for the previous year. These rates are then provided to DCAA for review/approval and used for billing purposes under any CR contracts. This year, DCAA has stated that since we do not have a CPFF or T&M prime contract ourselves, we do not have a requirement to submit our PBR and they will NOT review our 2017 provisional rates.
Our Prime contractor will not accept our updated rates for the CPFF subcontract since we do not have approved rates. As a small business, if we continue to bill using the provisional rates of 2016 (which were approved), we will be operating at a loss for 2017. In accordance with FAR 42.704 (c), billing rates may be prospectively or retroactively revised by mutual agreement between DCAA and the contractor.
Without DCAA agreement, how is a subcontractor able to invoice for rate adjustments?

I am currently working on a sole-source IDIQ. I have solicited multiple fixed price supply items (non-commercial). My RFP includes range pricing and a Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) /Annual Demand Value (ADV). The BEQ/ADV is based upon forecast data provided by the customer tempered with common sense and buy history.
For Instance:
A CLIN on my RFP may look something like this
0001AA Antenna Widget
Quantity Range
100-190 (BEQ/ADV – 150)
191-200
201-270
I expect discreet pricing for all ranges, for all years of the contract (5 in this instance).
My solicitation/RFP requires a FAR 15.408 table 15-2 compliant proposal. I state specifically that cost analysis must be performed by the offeror for subcontracts identified in the CBOM as having total proposed pricing that exceeds the regulatory threshold indicated in FAR Part 15.403-4 AND that Fair and reasonable subcontractor analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b) shall be provided.
My Question:
What is the basis of the threshold for subcontract Cost Analysis (CAPA) for an IDIQ contract? Is it based on the max quantity you anticipate buying or the estimated quantity you believe you will buy…The BEQ/ADV or the Max?
In the example above, would you base the threshold on unit price x qty of 270 OR unit price x qty of 270…obviously very simplistic because on some of these RFP’s there are hundreds of items.
I ask this because I interpret the subcontractor CAPA threshold as being the anticipated maximum value of the contract (max value for all solicited items IDIQ). The problem is that we are asking for ranges above what we historically buy, because our customer anticipates that there could be a need for those higher quantities.
Contractors raise concerns on ROI and provide long lead time for proposal development when they interpret the RFP in that manner.
I believe there truly is a case to be made for limiting the CAPA threshold to what we plan to buy (ADV/BEQ), but do have concerns that high dollar value subcontracts will go unchallenged. Regardless of the CAPA threshold, contractors would still be required to provide subcontractor pricing for all ranges and typically provide a high % of firm quotes with their bid.
I would also like to add some additional context. I make a thorough evaluation of the ADV/BEQ we use and remove ranges (especially high ranges) when I have no reason to believe the Government will have a need to buy at that high a quantity.
Interested in your thoughts on the topic.

Hello Wifcon members,
I have a situation that I hope one of you can help me with. A subcontractor that worked under one of our Prime Contracts recently sent me their final invoice this month (Sept 2016), their final invoice was a rate adjustment based on their DCAA approved final indirect rates. The Prime Contract they worked under ended in 2014, but still has funding remaining on it. My questions are:
Can I bill their Final Rate Adjustment Invoice against the remaining funding left on the prime contract even though the prime contract has already ended?
Our prime contract costs for FY 2014 (year the prime contract was physically completed/ended) are currently being audited by the DCAA, would billing out the final invoice in FY2016 cause that cost to show up on the 2016 DCAA ICA? Is there a way to bill this Rate Adjustment Final Invoice without interfering with the DCAA's ICA?
I'm somewhat new to this whole process and appreciate any guidance.
V/R,
KR_2016

FAR 44.101 Defines Subcontractor as , "any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor ".
10 USC § 2474 (b) allows Depots to enter into Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and further says that they may provide, " (A) For employees of the Center [...] (under contract, subcontract, or otherwise) work related to the core competencies of the Center, including any depot-level maintenance and repair work that involves one or more core competencies of the Center".
Now, Title 10 allows the depot to enter into subcontract however the definition of "subcontractor" under FAR doesn't include, "an entity who has entered into an agreement to provide supplies and services under a prime contract". Can my depot be considered a subcontractor because they are allowed to subcontract EVEN THOUGH they are not a supplier, distributor, vendor or firm? Or can I simply argue that a since "supplier" isn't defined it must simply be is any entity who can provide supplies or services?
I know this seems pretty basic and that there are established processes for PPP agreements, however I'm stuck to arguing this path.

I was hoping I could pick someone's brain, as I wanted to confirm as to whether or not there is some federal or accounting principle that would prevent the following or if there are any ramifications that I may not be aware of? Long story short, we are a Subcontractor to a contract in which the Prime is requesting to handle all travel for our employees. From making arrangements, to reimbursing and/or paying the employee. The CLIN associated with travel was awarded on a cost reimbursable basis not-to-exceed $350k. Not sure if it's such a big deal but logically it just doesn't make sense to me. My understanding is that should we ever be audited by DCAA, that the question would be raised of why the Prime elected to handle and issue a purchase order strictly for labor. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and expertise. Rae

I am competing a requirement amongst GSA IT Schedul 70 contract holders. The requirement is combination of Firm Fixed Price and Labor Hour. In discussions with one of the other Contracting Officers here, he mentioned to me that I would be required to get subcontractor proposals in order to determine the reasonableness of the Prime Vendor's rates (i.e. determining the prime's profit, etc.). This is not something that I have done before, nor in my time working in private industry have I submitted subcontractor proposals with my GSA quote. I would consider doing this if it were a sole source award, but with competition I dont think I need to do this. Especially, if we are not evaluating the labor categories against actual individuals. Am I wrong here?

Contract Type: Design Build - FFP Scenario: First tier subcontractor to prime contractor refuses to submit its invoices in the schedule of values format required by the prime contract. Background: 1. The prime contractor incorporated the schedule of values invoicing requirement into the subcontract; subcontractor concurred and signed subcontract. 2. Subcontractor attempts to "front load" charges into its invoices and demands prime contractor pay subcontractor well in advance of what prime can bill government for said charges under the required schedule of values. 3. Prime contractor contacts subcontractor to discuss on multiple occasions; in each discussion, subcontractor advises it will not comply with required invoice format. 4. Prime contractor notifies the KO of the situation and its intent to withhold subcontractor payment in accordance with the procedures set forth in 52.232-27(e). 5. Prime contractor issues a formal subcontractor withholding notice conforming to the requirements of 52.232-27(g). 6. In reply, subcontractor notifies prime contractor to "pound sand" and continues in its refusal to submit invoices in the schedule of values format required. 7. Prime contractor notifies KO weekly of status of situation and continues (on a nearly daily basis) in its attempts to get the subcontractor to submit a proper invoice. Question: Is the prime contractor required to submit subsequent subcontractor withholding notices until the situation is resolved or will prime's actions in Item 7 above suffice? If additional notices are required, is there a specific frequency required?

A small business subcontractor working for a prime contractor has not received final payment for work completed from April 2012 to August 2012 due to the non-acceptance of a major deliverable (a report) by the government. The prime contractor has a cost plus fixed fee contract with the federal government. There have been several iterations of the deliverable in question primarily due to the government COTR changing three times. The first COTR asked for more detail and when revised, a new COTR was appointed, and asked for less detail. The deliverable was revised again to meet his request, and by then, a new COTR was appointed, and again asked for more detail. The prime contractor is in standby mode and not questioning the irregularity in the inspection of the deliverable. The small business subcontractor would like to know what rights, if any, it has in such a situation to elevate this irregular review of the deliverable in order to obtain acceptance and receive payment.

I am a 1st tier sub on a Federal Contract and my 2nd tier sub submitted an RFP to the Prime which was then approved and sent back as a Change Order. I signed my Change order with the prime and sent my Change Order down to my sub to sign. My sub found an error in the amount that they submitted and are not willing to sign this months pay app which includes the executed Change order nor will they sign the Change Order. My sub said it is my fault and I should not have signed the Change Order. I do not feel that I am in the wrong here because my prime submitted the number that my sub submitted (signed RFP) and my prime has an executed Change Order with the owner. What has to happen regardless of me signing the Change Order is a Request for Equitable Adjustment to submit to the owner. Am I wrong here? Any advice would be appreciated

We have a CR contract awarded in 2012 to a not-for-profit small business organization for R&D. Now, in one of the option years, the contractor is claiming that they can do a portion of the work for less if they hire a subcontractor to do that portion of the work. They are trying to charge the government for the audit of a potential subcontractor to do this work. The government did not 'request' or 'require' that the subcontractor be used--the contractor proposed it on their own. I can't find anywhere that addresses this directly (or indirectly on the facts presented--existing contract, subcontractor audit, etc). So my question is whether the government is/can be liable for the cost of auditing the potential subcontractor? The contract is subject to the HSSAR if that helps.

A company being 100% stock-acquired is a T&M subcontractor to large prime. Certified Cost or Pricing Data was not required during proposal process. Subcontract includes non-assignment clause by prime and flowdown of 52.215-19 Notification of Ownership Changes. Since the sub is being purchased in whole, assignment doesn't apply. Would a T&M subcontract be subject to postaward cost redetermination if there are immaterial ODCs, thereby requiring the notification of ownership change?

We as a prime contractor have been wrestling with who is responsible for reviewing a subcontractors final indirect cost rate proposal and determining the rates. It's an easy thing if the subcontractor has an approved accounting system but what if he doesn't and you are awarding a T&M subcontract. FAR 42.202(e)(2) states "The prime contractor is responsible for managing it subcontracts". Does this mean every function described in 42.302(a)? Further when you get to T&M subcontracts there is no requirement to flow down the T&M payment clause 52.232-7 nor is there a requirement to flow down the allowable cost and payment clause 52.216-7. However, a purdent contractor should include some of the requirements in these clauses in their T&M subcontract. Vern and Don have said contractors do not have to comply with FAR in awarding subcontracts except when clauses specifically contain a flow down requirement. I hope I haven't misinterpreted this. DCAA wants to hold prime contractor's feet to the fire on everything and some ACO's want us to follow the FAR to the letter. Drives me nuts and forgive me for rambling. The real question is how do you determine who looks at a subcontractor's final indirect cost rate proposal? FAR 42.703-1(a) says "A single agency (see 42.705-1) shall be responsible for establishing final indirect cost rates for each business unit." Is it only the government based on the matrix of cognizance within DCMA and DCAA? Is the prime responsible, and if so when? What if the subcontractor will not provide access to his books? Who does it then?